@oldhat-Couldn't you, at least in the beginning and getting used to things, bring a DSLR with you when using your SLR? I mean, take a few shots and see which settings work, and then apply it to the SLR? Maybe after doing that for a while the repetition will sink in. A light meter would still be preferred, but maybe you could at least learn how to better estimate ballpark notion of things?

For everyone knowledgeable in matters of film and digital:

Film is expensive. So, if I were to use a film camera, but when bringing it to get developed I only requested the pictures on a CD (can they give you RAW format from film?), or some other digital medium - then decided those few images I wanted to properly print out, and used the digital files to print the image from... would the resulting image be of equal quality and tone as though first printed from the actual film, or would there be degradation in the image quality?

funny you should ask, i started shooting film again, and the two rolls i did i had scanned to CD. my gf still has the neg & cd with her in Montreal, so i can't say how much difference it is in quality until she brings them when she comes down in a few weeks. here's one of the pics from the CD scan she emailed me just now:there's two others in the self-portrait thread also.

it apparently used one of these: Noritsu Laband according to the company site, they're capable of doing RAW scans, so you might just need to request the scan for RAW, not the default jpeg. will possibly cost more, obviously, but just ask.

@Zoe: I dont know what it is about Japanese rock bands, but they are so much fun to shoot. A lot of japanese performers seem live for the theatrics and fan service.

@Rachel: If cost is an issue, I would shoot black and white film, and develop it yourself. For about 30 dollars you can get all the gear and reagents you would need to process a metric crapload of rolls. And the process itself is very simple. Black and white film is also rather cheap, and you can get rebranded Tri-X 400 for about $2 a roll. As for the scan quality, it would depend on the people and equipment used to do the job, but I am not sure if the resulting files will match your negative, as different hardware and software interprets data differently, and some tweaking might have to be done in post to match the tones exactly. And then there is also the old school of thought that you should always print from negatives to preserve that fresh film feeling...

I don't miss messing around with a darkroom much to be honest - (or the pseudo-darkroom I had in my bedroom) the ruined carpets, the chemical induced headaches, the wasted paper, the incessant problems with dust or watermarks on the negatives, the test strips. Don't think it's that much easier or cheaper getting good prints digitally, but at least it's dry and doesn't smell... do admit that real prints are lovely though.

I can't wait to take the darkroom workshop again later this year and finally clean up the family's darkroom so it can be used. Such a great experience and with the right music I could totally imgaine myself in there for hours and hours.

You can't get real RAW format from film. RAW includes camera data that gives the programme your'e using a benchmark to work from for any post-processing.Best you get with film is RAW format but with no data to work from with regard to exposure etc. Still, at 16 bit, its a lot more malleable than JPEGOther issue is that CD will only hold roughly 14 RAW images, at 8 Million Pixels ( 6x4 print size) the files are around 56 Megs each.